Letters

Tuesday, April 2, 1996Young dishonors UCLA

Editor:

In the Daily Bruin report about admission preferences ("Reports
reveal admissions preferences," April 1) we finally began to
understand why Chancellor Young is so much in favor of affirmative
action.

Young has been personally responsible for allowing unqualified
rich kids into UCLA. We suppose he feels guilty about this (as he
should) and therefore supports balancing these special admissions
with other special admissions.

If UCLA wants to avoid these scandals in the future, we would be
happy to write a computer program for the admissions department
that admits students based on quantitative criteria only (GPA and
SAT score). Specifically excluded from this program would be any
reference to race, sex, parental wealth and letters of
recommendation from powerful politicians.

Chancellor Young, you have dishonored yourself, and you have
dishonored UCLA; when you retire, you will not be missed.

Brian Dempsey and

Brendan Dooher

Graduate students

Mechanical engineering

Money talks for rich

Editor:

Currently there is an investigation into the admissions policy
at UCLA. Why am I not surprised? Admitting sub-standard students is
morally wrong, regardless of Charles Young’s rationalizations. Such
admissions are a slap in the face of those possessing higher
qualifications. Less-qualified students are taking the place of
those more qualified. This reinforces the old adage "It’s not what
you know, but who you know."

This news sends a very clear message to the working class that
money talks. Millions of working-class citizens pay taxes to
support UCLA, and they expect UCLA to play by the rules, to be a
role model and to set an example.

If these special admissions to wealthy, powerful offspring are
above board, then why are they performed behind closed doors? Why
does it take an investigation by the Los Angeles Times to disclose
these actions? Would not Charles Young and UCLA be proud of these
admissions? I think not. Something is rotten in Westwood.

Let us discuss this openly. There are two overriding factors
involved: UCLA is highly rated academically and is low cost. To be
candid, UCLA is a "deal." These are the reasons why the rich and
powerful lobby to get their less-than-stellar student offspring
into UCLA.

My proposal: Charge these special VIP admits the true cost of
their education at UCLA. This figure would probably total more than
out-of-state/foreign students are charged. I surmise that the
pressure to admit these less-qualified students would cease with
such a policy.

In closing: Perchance, are Young’s and Terry Donahue’s
unexpected retirements connected to this investigation? Hmm …
food for thought.

D.J. Schulte

Vietnam vet activist

Riding gender fence

Editor:

After reading her angry and normative column ("A little
submissiveness never hurt anyone," April 1), I began to think how
many Elizabeth Richs are out there. Young women grow up in a world
with so many conflicting signals and where decision making is left
up to the male. The latter helps me with Rich’s column because she
realizes her hypocrisy by grabbing the polarized spheres of a
feminist and a codependent girl.

The lack of confidence in decision making led Rich to stand on
the fence of gender issues with the worst of reasons. "Even though
I struggle to be independent … I admit it feels good to …
depend on him, to have his arm around me and act like a little
girl." I don’t know about the men who read Rich’s column, but if I
were in a heterosexual relationship, I would not want to be a
father, I would want to be a boyfriend.

"Yet, I do believe that my future husband will lift the heavy
things, kill the spiders and work on the car." Women CAN lift heavy
things (however, smart women would leave it up to the man), women
CAN kill spiders, and women CAN work on a car. What is stopping
you? Why do SOME women create dualities when they never really
existed? Of course, most construction workers, movers and mechanics
are men, but does that mean Rich, a woman, cannot do these things?
No! There is so much HUMAN ability gone to waste.

Why, I remember reading a women’s magazine that had an equation
for putting on makeup that could make Oppenheimer’s head spin.
Individual critical thinking, unfortunately, is non-existent among
women.

I hope in my lifetime that all the walls women have to climb and
the glass ceiling women have to break will be gone, but I don’t
think the fence-riding logic of Elizabeth Rich will ever produce
solutions. It will only produce confusion.

John Selahatin Foxworthy

Third-year

Economics/international studies

Stop blaming women

Editor:

I read Elizabeth Rich’s column ("A little submissiveness never
hurt anyone," April 1) with great dismay (I am hoping it was an
April Fool’s Day joke). Within her sometimes disjointed and
regularly sophomoric article, Rich attempts to reconcile submission
with love, and ­ in a more unique project ­ with
feminism. "Yes, I will be submissive to my husband ­ in the
loving sense of the word," she openly declares. Rich’s husband,
however, "had better beware, because sometimes that little girl (in
her) becomes a raging feminist."

For all its shortcomings, Rich’s column has a tremendous
redeeming strength. Rich asks questions that are too often muted
within our culture’s debate over the role and status of women: "How
can men laugh and cheer and continue to dance to a (sexist) song?
Why aren’t men held responsible for their behavior to women?" To
her list, I would add another question ­ what social and
institutional mechanisms encourage women to embrace the submissive
role and demeaned status conferred upon them?

The answer to all these questions is, oddly enough, deducible
from the facts presented by Rich. She writes, "I know two couples
who divorced because the wives refused to relocate to another
state. That’s not love ­ except of oneself." Rich has chosen
to blame two women because they did not submit to their husbands
wishes.

In another time, we may ask why two men would sacrifice their
marriages to relocate. That’s not love ­ except of oneself.
Until then, we should realize that men are often not held
accountable for their behavior because we have already blamed women
for their actions. Every day, we blame wives and mothers for the
failures of their husbands and children. Just as commonly, we blame
women for "inviting" rape.

None of this should surprise the attentive observer. The system
was established by men and works to sustain their privilege. This
is why I was shocked that Rich would choose to separate her
"personal life from (her) political beliefs about gender issues."
The system that works against women is pervasive; it works within
both the public and private sphere, existing in social and
institutional contexts. Those who care about changing the system
­ and I believe that Rich does ­ must realize that
progress will not come by supporting patriarchy on one level while
attacking it on another.

By progress, I don’t mean that we should pretend that men and
women are homogenous creatures. Rather, I believe that it is
imperative that we recognize our actual differences, obliterate our
ill-conceived stereotypes, and seek to understand each other as
well as we can. I think we’ll find that "the very human need to be
cared for and wanted" does not contradict the movement of women
toward a new womanhood, as Rich suggests. Rather, it is the essence
of a new womanhood.

Christopher Schemers

Fourth-year

Political science

Thanks to Bruins

Editor:

I would like to publicly express my gratitude to the UCLA
students who help the Los Angeles Ronald McDonald House. We have
had some individual students, the Bruin Belles and the Awaken A
Cappella groups come to the House recently, spreading their
sunshine to the families who stay there while the children undergo
treatment for cancer and other serious illnesses.

It is such a wonderful thing to see the energy, talent and love
that they bring to these families. Thank you, Lisa and Julie, who
come and do wonderful arts and crafts each week. Thank you, Bruin
Belles, who brought goodies, did crafts and played with the kids.
And thank you, Awaken A Cappella, who sang so beautifully and put
on quite a show for our families! You all are fantastic!

Gay Lannon

UCLA Physician Relations

Ronald McDonald House volunteer Chair